RECINAS
23 I & N Dec. 467 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" for cancellation of removal under § 240A(b) of the INA, an applicant must show hardship to a qualifying relative that is substantially beyond what would ordinarily be expected upon removal. A cumulative assessment of factors, such as being a single parent to multiple children with no familial support in the country of removal, can satisfy this high standard.
Facts:
- Ariadna Angelica Gonzalez Recinas, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1988 on a nonimmigrant visa and remained longer than authorized.
- She is a 39-year-old divorced single mother of six children, four of whom are United States citizens aged 12, 11, 8, and 5.
- Gonzalez Recinas is the sole financial and familial provider for her children; their father is not actively involved in their lives.
- Her entire immediate family, including her lawful permanent resident parents and five U.S. citizen siblings, resides in the United States.
- Gonzalez Recinas has no immediate family remaining in Mexico.
- Her U.S. citizen children have lived their entire lives in the U.S., have a close relationship with their grandmother who provides childcare, and have difficulty speaking, reading, or writing in Spanish.
- With the help of her family, Gonzalez Recinas started her own vehicle inspection business but has limited financial resources, with net profits of $400-500 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- Ariadna Angelica Gonzalez Recinas and her two non-citizen children were placed in removal proceedings.
- Before an Immigration Judge, Gonzalez Recinas applied for cancellation of removal, arguing her deportation would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her four U.S. citizen children and lawful permanent resident parents.
- On December 18, 2000, the Immigration Judge denied the application, finding the hardship standard was not met.
- Gonzalez Recinas, as the adult respondent, appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the removal of a single mother, who is the sole provider for her six children and has no family in her native Mexico but extensive, legally-present family in the United States, constitute "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her four U.S. citizen children under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Villageliu, Board Member
Yes. The removal of Gonzalez Recinas would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen children. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents like Matter of Monreal and Matter of Andazola by focusing on the cumulative effect of several significant factors. The court found that while no single factor was dispositive, the combination of her status as a single parent solely responsible for six children, the complete absence of a family support system in Mexico, the lawful presence of her entire immediate family in the U.S., the children's unfamiliarity with the Spanish language, and the lack of alternative immigration pathways created a level of hardship well beyond that normally experienced in removal cases. These combined factors placed this case on 'the outer limit of the narrow spectrum' of cases that meet the high statutory standard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard, while high, is not so restrictive that it requires a qualifying relative to have a serious medical condition. It establishes the principle that a cumulative analysis of multiple significant factors can satisfy the standard. By distinguishing this case from Monreal and Andazola, the Board provides crucial guidance on how factors like the number of dependent children, the applicant's status as a single parent, and the complete absence of a support network in the home country can elevate ordinary hardship to the statutory level. This creates a pathway for applicants with a compelling combination of adverse circumstances, even without a single catastrophic hardship.
